Cargando…

Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study

Background and objective Acute hypoxic respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been treated with oxygen delivered by oxygen masks and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and more recently with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mirunalini, Gunaseelan, Anand, Kuppusamy, Pushparani, Anand, Kadirvelu, Gunasri
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37876393
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.45798
_version_ 1785124064454508544
author Mirunalini, Gunaseelan
Anand, Kuppusamy
Pushparani, Anand
Kadirvelu, Gunasri
author_facet Mirunalini, Gunaseelan
Anand, Kuppusamy
Pushparani, Anand
Kadirvelu, Gunasri
author_sort Mirunalini, Gunaseelan
collection PubMed
description Background and objective Acute hypoxic respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been treated with oxygen delivered by oxygen masks and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and more recently with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) devices. There is a paucity of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of CPAP with HFNC in COVID-19 pneumonia. We conceptualized a randomized control study to compare the efficacy of HFNC and CPAP in reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, estimation of mechanical ventilation-free days, and risk of intubation in COVID-19 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. Methodology One hundred consecutive patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the trial. The patients were then randomly allocated to receive either CPAP or HFNC with settings as per the study protocol. The patients were deemed to have achieved the study endpoint when they were intubated due to any reason or successfully weaned from NIV to conventional oxygen therapies. The number of patients who required invasive ventilation and the number of invasive ventilation-free days were recorded and analyzed. Results Nineteen (38%) patients in the CPAP group and 30 (60%) patients in the HFNC group required invasive mechanical ventilation and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.1829-0.9129). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation in the CPAP group (median=5 (interquartile range (IQR(=5,6)) was more than in the HFNC group (median=4 (IQR=3,4)) and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.000). The secondary analysis of risk evaluation for intubation done using the Cox regression model showed no significant factors that could have contributed to intubation in the study population. The Kaplan-Meyer curve was used to express the probability of a patient getting intubated and the calculated hazard ratio was 2.29. Conclusion The administration of CPAP significantly reduced the intubation rate and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation-free period in COVID-19 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. We also inferred a two-fold increase in the risk of intubation in patients receiving HFNC compared to CPAP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10590770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105907702023-10-24 Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study Mirunalini, Gunaseelan Anand, Kuppusamy Pushparani, Anand Kadirvelu, Gunasri Cureus Internal Medicine Background and objective Acute hypoxic respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has been treated with oxygen delivered by oxygen masks and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and more recently with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) devices. There is a paucity of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of CPAP with HFNC in COVID-19 pneumonia. We conceptualized a randomized control study to compare the efficacy of HFNC and CPAP in reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, estimation of mechanical ventilation-free days, and risk of intubation in COVID-19 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. Methodology One hundred consecutive patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the trial. The patients were then randomly allocated to receive either CPAP or HFNC with settings as per the study protocol. The patients were deemed to have achieved the study endpoint when they were intubated due to any reason or successfully weaned from NIV to conventional oxygen therapies. The number of patients who required invasive ventilation and the number of invasive ventilation-free days were recorded and analyzed. Results Nineteen (38%) patients in the CPAP group and 30 (60%) patients in the HFNC group required invasive mechanical ventilation and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03, 95%CI: 0.1829-0.9129). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation in the CPAP group (median=5 (interquartile range (IQR(=5,6)) was more than in the HFNC group (median=4 (IQR=3,4)) and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.000). The secondary analysis of risk evaluation for intubation done using the Cox regression model showed no significant factors that could have contributed to intubation in the study population. The Kaplan-Meyer curve was used to express the probability of a patient getting intubated and the calculated hazard ratio was 2.29. Conclusion The administration of CPAP significantly reduced the intubation rate and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation-free period in COVID-19 patients with hypoxic respiratory failure. We also inferred a two-fold increase in the risk of intubation in patients receiving HFNC compared to CPAP. Cureus 2023-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10590770/ /pubmed/37876393 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.45798 Text en Copyright © 2023, Mirunalini et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Internal Medicine
Mirunalini, Gunaseelan
Anand, Kuppusamy
Pushparani, Anand
Kadirvelu, Gunasri
Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study
title Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study
title_full Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study
title_fullStr Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study
title_short Comparison of High Flow Nasal Cannula and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critical Care Unit: A Randomized Control Study
title_sort comparison of high flow nasal cannula and continuous positive airway pressure in covid-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in critical care unit: a randomized control study
topic Internal Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10590770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37876393
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.45798
work_keys_str_mv AT mirunalinigunaseelan comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureincovid19patientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeincriticalcareunitarandomizedcontrolstudy
AT anandkuppusamy comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureincovid19patientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeincriticalcareunitarandomizedcontrolstudy
AT pushparanianand comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureincovid19patientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeincriticalcareunitarandomizedcontrolstudy
AT kadirvelugunasri comparisonofhighflownasalcannulaandcontinuouspositiveairwaypressureincovid19patientswithacuterespiratorydistresssyndromeincriticalcareunitarandomizedcontrolstudy